it put the whole economy at risk. some people made some bad decisions but i am much more sympathetic to a family that says i want to get a house and a decent school districts so i am willing to pay a little bit more. look at that mistake as opposed to turning our head-on trillions host: we have come to the end of our time, but we want to thank you for being an hour program this morning. we will continue to cover the debt ceiling debate going on in the house and senate today. the house action stars at noon. you will be able to see that live at c-span. the senate is in at 1:00.

you can see the house live on c- span and you can see the senate live on c-span to. for updates throughout the day, you can -- senate live on c- span2. for updates throughout the day, you can go to c-span.org. on our program tomorrow, someone from the tea party express will talk about the debt ceiling. we will also have a representative from moveon.org. you can do to our website as well to find out details about that. thank you for watching this edition of "washington journal." we will see you tomorrow morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern.

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> tomorrow on "news makers, we will hear from the iowa governor on the gop straw poll. also, the role of next year's iowa caucuses. "newsmakers" airs at 6:00 p.m. eastern here on c-span, subject to development with the debt and deficit bill.

>> it is a moving tale of ignorance from human understanding. it is an american invention. >> if you missed our latest documentary on the library of congress, there is a preview right now on youtube. become a subscriber to our youtube channel for free. watch the entire documentary and hundreds of other videos online at youtube.com/cspan. you are watching c-span. every morning, "washington journal" brings you news of the day. weekdays, watch live coverage of the house. in the evenings, congressional policy forums. also, supreme court hearings.

you can also watch our programming any time at c- span.org, and it is all searchable at our video library. c-span, a public service created by america's cable companies. >> we will bring you continuing coverage of the debt and deficit negotiations on capitol hill today. you can watch the house here on c-span. there will be gaveling in at noon and starting legislative business at 1:00 p.m. the senate will be dabbling in at 1:00 on c-span2. let's take a look at the latest developments and the congressional response as well as the possibility that the u.s. will default on tuesday. >> senior political reporter

richard cohen from congressional quarterly joins us to talk about debt ceiling negotiations. where they are going. on the wall street journal, the ehner bill squeaks throu. back to the "wall street journal" mcconnell likely holds the key to the deal. take us through the past, present, in future. guest: past months when speaker boehner took office, he was preparing republicans for what he thought would be very difficult in raising the debt ceiling. we know the treasury secretary says it needs to be raised high

since tuesday. the work by the hse finally culminated in a vote last evening around 6:00, in which the house narrowly was without a single democratic vote. to raise the debt ceiling but with a condition of spending cuts. now the bill must go to the senate. it has done nothing to is point. it has three days to get it all done and the pressure is on. the senate has an unusual procedures and has a key -- at 1:00 in the morning, sunday morning.

they will try to end the debate on what is senator reid's proposal or an amended version of it. there is a need for 60 votes to end the debate. only 53 democrats, and we will need seven republicans voting on the debate. if they do not have a good boat, then we will have problems. who is sitting in the driver's seat? guest: they both play an important role. in the senate, senator harry reid receiveto the house

passed bill and the first thing he did is get the senate on what was a party line vote to stay -- say no to a bill. senator reid driving the process offered his alternative. in doing that, senator reid invited all senators, especially republican leader mcconnell to reach out to him a. he needs republicans and from the logical way for this to proceed is for republicans to channel their views through senator mcconnell, the

republican leader. senator reid asked for a straight up or down vote. senator mcconnell said, no, we want to go through the normal ocess where it takes 60 votes to end the filibuster, correct? guest: then senator reid can pass his alternative solely with democratic votes. they want to use the procedures in which they can keep talking senator mcconnell, it takes 60 votes to virtually do anything in the senate. that is the case here as well. host: the president says he

endorses the read and mcconnell. and can be modified. let us see what he had to say yes today and then we will get your response. >> there are multiple ways to resolve this problem. senator reid has introduced a plan in the senate to introduce cuts agreed upon by both parties. senator rick -- mitch mcconnell, a republican, offered a solution that can get us through this. there are plenty of compromises we can make to either of these plants to get them passed through the house and the senate and would allow me to sign them into law. host: what is the likelihood that the senate will work together in a way that the president is proposing to get this bill passed? guest: that is the $64,000 question. the leaders in congress of both parties have said for weeks or months that they will work

together to ensure that something is done and that they will a avoid a default, which would result in an increase in the federal rates. and they say they will cooperate, and we will see that sunday morning. the house would have to approve the changes. all of the tot remains very divisive in botharties. host: we are talking about the latest of elements in the debt ceilg negotiations. we would like you to get involved in the conversation. the numbers to call are at the bottom of the screen.

debose a call or send an e-mail or eight tweet -- a tweet. our first call is on the democratic line. caller: can they explain what they will be cutting and what they will be capping in the bill? guest: that is a very good question. you have not heard much, because all of the proposals are similar in intent they make the so-cled spending cuts, but they did it through a device

called a spendingap, which would reduce overall spending by trillions of dollars over the next 10 years. it is only a general kappa that would reduce overall spendg and be left up to congress to figure out where specific cuts will be made. it is too hard to reach a agreement to make the cuts specific. all three of these proposals work off of the concept of cap. some of the numbers are fairly

similar to each other. even with all of the harsh rhetoric, when you look at the specific proposals, they are not rather specific. host: our next call comes from tampa, fla. on our line for democrats. virginia? caller: i have been in touch with my representatives. i have an e-mail from the office of president obama. i am considering changing my party, because i am very disgusted with what the republicans are trying to do. they need a compromise.

we need to protect the benefits of a veterans and our elderly. and whomever is going to support social security -- host: do you see or hear a lot of people talking across party lines because of what they feel for their representatives here in washington? guest: public opinion i very negative on both parties. some of voters say -- can i play off briefly from a call from tampa? she is talking correctly about partisanship.

last evening the pact -- the house passed the bill and it went to the senate. the first thing the senate did was to have a party line vote essentially in the senate saying notice speaker boehner's built their that happened last night. what will the house do today? they will have a vote on a proposal that senator reid laid out, in which the republican- controlled house will say to senator reid's alternative. so you have this reflex motion in both parties to say to the other party. and at a time where there is a need, there is going to be a deal, eventually ey will have to say yes to each other. but we are not there yet. host: next up, kan., on our line for independents.

caller: one thing i have heard no discussion on clause tea partyers talking about my raising on the wealthiest americans because that would deprive them in reinvesting that money back into the economy. that has not happened. if they're still using the same argument today that we cannot raise the taxes because it would impair the investment, these people are giving themselves bonuses or sending the money overseas, what ever they are doing with it, it is not going back to the ppose of not raising the taxes to begin with. if not heard any conversation on any network or newspaper on this, and and this argument for not raising the taxes on the wealthy as. guest: good point. the reality goes back to the

point iade a moment ago. all three of the proposals include no additional revenues. no tax increase, no elimination of tax breaks, that is the assumption in each of the three proposals. there had been earlier some discussion of increased revenues. we do not want to say tax increases, but increased revenues were discussed fairly intensively in detail during the negotiations between president obama and house saker boehner. they reached a tentative agreement in their discussions which ultimately fell apart. but in their discussions, they did agree to a number, i think a hundred billion dollars of increase revenues over 10 years. -- $800 billion of increased revenues over 10 years.

those negotiations collapsed and that was pretty much the end of discussions of increased revenue. host: massachusetts, you are on the "washington journal." caller: it is very unfortunate that this ferry politically divisive debate has hung up over the debt ceiling, because it is much of an illusion. congressman ron paul running for president has pointed out that the fedel reserve holds $1.6 trillion of treasury debt, from its quantitative easing purchases. since the fed is a quasi-branch of the government, this debt is really money that the government chose to itself. this could be canceled. if this $1.6 trillion was canceled, it reduce the outstanding debt by a corresponding amount to a level well below the debt ceiling. as a result, it would buy a lot

of time for both political parties to pull back from the brink and have a careful debate to consider the best solutions for the debt and deficit going forward. guest: there is obviously the issue of not only the amount of debt that the nation have party has, how much credit is still available, something that is strictly technical -- pretty technical. the politicians and leaders and members of congress, they pretty much have decided they will go with treasury secretary geithner, and g-said that the credit runs out, there is no more available next tuesday. the caller is correct -- there are different views of it, but that view is pretty much has been cast aside because it is really -- even those who say there is additional money

available, it is a matter of days or a few weeks. so what has happened essentially is that the treasury department deadline has become an action- forcing mechanism. not much happens in washington without a deadline. host: in the "new york post" this morning, they talked about mapping out an action plan. they show secretary geithner dressed up as a football coach. under geithner's game plan, they prepare banks for all-out blitz is -- does it sound like the administration has decided that congress is not going to come to an agreement by august 2nd and it is time to lay out a plan be to get past that date?

guest: they have to be prepared at the treasury debt apartment and throughout government for all options. they have tri to do it very quietly, very cautiously. they have not gone public in describing their options in part because they do not want to alarm people about what might be the conquences. and they want to create the impression that this option b is that we do not have to worry about it. that congress will raise the debt ceiling as the leaders of congress have said and we are going to see whether option a works. host: wally on the subject, option b, have you heard of any discussions going on between secretary geithner or the people in the treasury and their international counterparts to

keep the international market steady as the congress and the president continue to work through this? guest: we can be certain those discussions are taking place and that u.s. officials have tried to reassure leaders are around the country of public officials as well as private sector bankers and financiers. treasury department is assuring them that everything will be fine. look, it is not the congress whether there will be progress, to make sure that everything will be fine. if there is not action by monday morning, there will be reasons -- i want to be careful i put this. there will not be much time yet to make sure that come monday morning, if congress has not move this along, there will be cause for concern on monday morning.

host: richard cohen is our guest for the next 22 minutes. he is a senior congressional reporter with "congressional quarterly." wanted on a line for democrats, ohio. -- wanda on the line for democrats, a high of. caller: i have paid my taxes and noi am very low-income. i do not get any assistance but i am worried about my money. i really do not understand all these things. they seem to be above my head. but there was a young senator thatas on c-span about three nights ago, i did notet his name, he was a democrat from virginia. his statement was, first of all, we are americans but we' not republicans or democrats.

if we do not do our job, we should be fired. and yoknow something? i agree with that. guest: that gets to a couple of points i have made. interesting comments from the caller. one, wanda is an example of how the public is getting pretty disenchanted with what is going on in congress. the lack of action, and number two, she is talking to the extent that wanda cited that democratic senator from virginia, maybe that was mark warner, who talked about the need for bipartisanship. yes, some members talk about the need bark -- for bipartisanship, and there even have been including centers, some

bipartisan, but we have not seen the results out of that bipartisan proposal. there is no serious bipartisan proposal that have come to the senate or house floors. host: the senate and house will be back in action later on today. this -- the house gavels in at noon. you'll be able to watch it here on c-span. the senate is in at 1:00 in the afternoon for you can watch them live on c-span2. ryan on our line for independents. caller: a quick comment on one of the previous callers about businesses and people investing, businesses reinvesting. i think that more than raising

the taxes, is the uncertainty that the community faces right now, the health care bill, and if you watched the president address the chamber of commerce, it seems clear that the business community is not a b fan of the current ainistration. also, ianted to comment on the fact that -- host: ryan, we will leave it there. guest: the businesses had been urging congress to work the problem out and to get it resolved. and they made the point that the uncertainty in congress is bad for business. i think that this point from business was reinforced by the

discouraging news yesterday that the economy is very weak. growth came and in the second quarter of this year at 1.3%, lower than expected, lower than is necessary to create jobs. and the overall growth rate for e past six months is less than 1%. again, it is a number, but that number suggests a lot of pain in the country. all lot of people looking for work who are unempyed. businesses that are not moving at full tilt. the country frankly is hurting economically. that underscores this. host: the "wall street jrnal" put out this chart talking about key players to watch as the debt ceiling drama moves into the senate floor. under a category that they have republicans on the fence, they

list one at -- orrin hatch, lindsey graham, richard lugar, marco rubio, and bob corker of tennessee. the uc is similar thread or a similar pattern to the voting -- do you see a similar threat or pattern to these centers and why they would be on the fence? guest: i see two separate groups in that list of republican senators who you mentioned. one of our the hard-liners among senate republicans who are not likely to be part of any bipartisan deal. they really objected, some hard- liners who have said no even as speaker boehner's proposal, and they would include orrin hatch yesterday, and there were 6 republicans who actually supported harry reid in saying

no to the republic -- to the boehner proposal. they said no to boehner because there were more conservative. there are hardliners among senate republicans and there are also a separe group including, you mentioned senator lugar and senator corker of tennessee. they are trying to reach some kind of bipartisan agreement and they would be in a group that to reach 60 to end debate,hey would be the kind of republicans who would be part of the necessary group of republicans to reach some kind of bipartisan agreement. there two groups in the senate. host: we'll get back to other groups in a secd bid we have an e-mail from an unidentified viewer.

guest: good question. i will respond to what the republicans say. there isome truth to this, the republicans point out that in the house they pass something called cut, cap, and balance. that is the proposal they say that they prefer. the house republicans passed last week and it went to the senate. as senate democrats, under the majority leader immediately said -- passed aotion saying, no, so then the republicans say, we are pulling back.

the bill that house rublicans passed this week does not go as far as their bill from last week. it's a small matter of degree, obviously. the bill this week, while men may not reach quite as f as last week's proposal, it is still unattractive to democratic votes. host: back to the phones to continue our conversation with richard cohen. our next call comes from eileen on a line from republica in new jersey. caller: it is a pleasure to have you on the show. it is very interesting. my one comment before i ask the question -- everyone involved with our government needs to go back and read washington's farewell address concerning factions. this is exactly what you're seeing right now. i think that is probably what washington envisioned could

happen with factions, with our parties. one ofhe things i am hearing is a gdp all the time. in the past, we used the focus on gnp, gross national product. we looked at gdp for third world nations. why are we focusing on gdp versus gnp? is a dealing with the fact that our manufacturing has gone out the window in is going to other parts of the world and we're just focusing on services? and i know one person called about our gross rate was of little over 1%? it is under 1%. we have a lot of outsourcing taking place. and jobs are being created but they are going out of the country. could you comment on that? guest: the caller is correct. the government has used this

unit -- this new measure of economic growth, gdp, gross domestic product instead of gross national product. this is taking place, my knowledge is limited, but this is a change that has been made going back quite a few years under presidents of the party. i do not think that there is anything sinister in the use of gdp reference instead of gnp. no matter what measure you use, eileen is correct is that the economy is very weak. less than 1% growth in the first six months of this year. the public is unhappy because there is not enough jobs and not enough -- a lot of pessimism about where the country is heading. host: in addition t being the

senior congressional reporter for "congressional quarterly," he has written books. is the co-author o of of the allman knocked of american politics -- he is the co-author of "the manac of american politics." also "changing coue in washington." back to the phones. eric on a line for democrats, you are on the "washington journal." , andr: i am a veteran si sure happens to be my congressman. schuler is my

congressman. what is going happen to us if we do not reached the debt ceiling? in for anybody who is on that kind of stuff, that is what i like to know. instead of having the filibusters, i would even let heath become a quarterback and into the situation as timothy geithner said, let's get republicans and democrats on the field. gut: the caller raises a good question, we do not know the answer. if the government runs out of money, does not have sufficient money to pay its bills, because there is no increase in the day it ceiling, we do not know -- in

the debt ceiling -- we know that ere are some areas that government officials, the wte house and in congress, have said some bills will be paid. in all likelihood, the bondholders in this country and overseas will be paid because if they are not, there would be a big crisis. there alsoeen suggestions by some that social security recipients should be paid. there been suggesons by others that the members of the active military should be paid. has anyone said that veterans should be paid no matter what? not necessarily. should schoolteachers, should local school boards receive money, highways, should welfare recipients? it is uncertain who would not get money if the government no longer had sufficient money to

borrow. these are the kinds of questions that have been thought about but it really little public discussion because as the treasury department does not want to alarm the public that this might happen. host: earlier we talked about republicans on the fence. this is from the "wall street journal." the listed also democrats on the fence. they listed these. guest: there are differences among republicans and also among some democrats. having said that, there was one kevote in the house yesterday and in the senate. on each of those two votes, the democrats voted unanimously. we have not seen those differences play out. if there is a compromise agreement, a bipartisan

agreement, in all likelihood some democrats in the house and the senate would oppose it and some republicans in the house and senate would oppose it. we are not there yet. but if the viewers are staying tuned to the next few day if they start to see some democrats and some republicans separately saying i am not going there, that may be a good sign that an agreement is moving forward in a bipartisan way. host:he senate has already voted to table the boehner bill. we expect that the house later today will turn down the read bill. -- reid bill. how does congress move forward in the next 24 to 48 hours? guest: it is time for the adults to step florida's they have said. if they do it in a bipartisan way, it will have to be done

quietly and in back rooms over there. a few blocks away in the capitol building, so we are not going to see it. and there have been some discussions. the leaders in both parties have said and their staff and okesmen have said that there have been some quiet discussions among the leaders, boehner, ried in particular, and if there is to be in agreement, it would be those to taking the lead. on the one hand, they are quietly talking to each other and reaching out to each other. on the other hand, publicly, they are still faring grenades at each other. host: when we talk about "adults" being in the room, does that include the vice-president of the president? or is this something that has to be worked out between house leaders in the senate leaders

without the kids sing or distraction of the administration? -- kibbutzing or the destruction of the administration? guest: the president has been actively involved in negotiations with speaker boehner. those discussions ended a week ago, but they have had an impact. bayh's president biden several weeks ago led a bipartisan group of leaders to try to do some of the initial discussions. it was not -- it did not end up with a final package, but it helped tset some of the framework which helps to explain why there is some agreement in the general approach of these three proposals. host: next up is lansing, kan., wayne, you aren the "washington journal" with

richard cohen. caller: i should have been on the independent line but i will take that. the major powers of the world thought over what they had, and we're going to be fighting over what nobody else has. i'm afraid that if someone does not come up with something will soon, you can call it what everyone, but there's not want to be much choice to fight ever. guest: there is reason to be discouraged these days with the politics and economics. to some extent, there are problems obviously with the economy around the world. i would say some spots are better thanthers, se growth areas, but to the extent that the u.s. economy is weak, that clearly does have an impac

around the world. host: as we take a look it the national debt in the trillions of dollars provided by the washington post, we will take our next call from new hampshire. on a power line for democrats. -- our line for democrats. caller: right after the congressional vote on cut, cap, and balance, the revised version, the interviewer was speaking with a couple of the new republican congressmen. one of them was actually proud that they were holding the stock market hostage. he was happy that the stock market was down. he would be just as happy, he said, if it dropped another 700 points. it is just ridiculous that these new tea party guys are just

holding everything hostage just to get this debt ceiling thing done. the republicanare saying live within their means. half of the people out there do not have means to live within any more. we got double whammyed, once from the stock market, and now the politicians are sticking it to us. the little guys are not going anywhere. there are -- there is absolutely no give on the republican side. cut, cap, and balance has absolutely no give. guest: many people have investments in the stock market. many of them obviously through mutual funds. most of those people this past week saw the value of their accounts go down. not radically, but the stock market dropped a few percentage points in the past week.

if there is an agreement, i suppose the stock market will go up and people will make back some of their money. but yes, those who have investments and retirement funds, they lost a little this week. in terms of his comment about tea party members, there are a lot of them in congress, 87 fresh members, notll the marty party members, but many of the republicans were elected and they tried to act on the promises. when you get that many, they have an impact. they have carried through in many cases with their promises and what they view as a mandate to change how washington works. it could lead to reduced spending. host: from the "new york times,"

how ty voted. 87% of the freshmen voted yes, 13% voted no. non-freshman, 93% voted yes, 7% voted no. guest: those are accurate figures. there are some differences, but i think those numbers are interesting, but to me, most republicans are together on this. regardless of their backgrounds. host: calling from virginia beach, you are on the "washington journal." caller: a couple of comments. fdr, when they brought social security into existence, it was supposed to be a guarantee for our seniors. it seems now that that becomes a

hammer to threaten people with. i have a bad taste in my mouth for both parties. secondly, we keep hearing the euphemism, revenue, which is appld word for tax increases. we also hear the euphemism, holding the country hostage. we were designed to be a divided government. we have three branches. my question to those talking about a hostage taking, if not now, when? when will we have the important discussion of cutting? and they've already downgraded us to aa, whereas movies and the other are paid for theirs. and the other are paid for there is. host: we will leave it there. guest: i am not an expert in how

the ratings have done. some of the servicers have warned that they may and warned that they will lower the ratings. and ts is been noted by the members of congress. they worried that -- a worry that the big agencies follow through, if they determine that our credit rating should be reduced, that have bad effects and among other things it would -- a lowering of our credit rating would increase the cost of interest >> we will continue our look at the debt and deficit in just a

moment. tomorrow on "road to the white house," we will look at the debt and deficit debate in congress, the state of the u.s. economy, and the strategy for winning the gop nomination. both the house and senate will be in session today, the house gaveling in for what could be a brief time at noon and beginning legislative work at 1:00. both houses are continuing work on a plan to raise the debt ceiling. next, more on that debate and a plan to meet the august 2nd deadline. we are continuing our discussion this morning about the debt debate in the upcoming august 2 deadline. joining us is representative mike pompeo, republican of kansas.

welcome to the program. you were on the fence about speaker boehner's plan and last nine you votedor. what changed your mind? guest: i became convinced that this was the right thing for america. we needed to put forward a plan that had real spending reductions. i became convinced that these were possible and real. we could for the first time in cades reduce our nation's discretionary spending. and when we got an opportunity to vote on a balanced budget amendment as part of that, i said, that is something i could support. the senate rejected it last night but i hope to reconsider. host: when you're still on the fence, did you have any face-to- face discussions with the speaker? guest: i did. i had the chance to speak with a lot my peers in congress. i came to congress from the business world.

i know how rita balance sheet and i know what it means to have debt at this kind of level. there is a lot of work to do. we're not going to be able to get all of that during this set of discussions. the question for me was, is this as much as we can get? is this far as we can go toward putting america's fiscal house in order? during those discussio, i came to the judgment that this was the right path for us to go down in the house of representatives. host: last night the senate tabled speaker boehner's plan became over. today when the house goes into session, they are expected to vote on the majority leader's plan and is expected to be defeated. with those two mileposts sat there, where does congress move from here to get the debt ceiling debate solved and move on?

guest: i do not know precisely how this unfolds over the next day or two. i hope tt it will. i believe that america has an obligation to pay its bills. we have to take care of those commitments that were made. but those commitments were made by folks here before me. they put us on a path that -- both republicans and democrats, by the way, and i for one cannot support anying that simply extends the credit card without beginnin to fix the spending addiction that america is suffering from. kansas, we have enormous unemployment. we know that if we continue to take this many resources from the private sector, then we will have big government and njobs. and that's the place we are today. i cannot support anything that takes the can down the road. host: we're talking with representative mike pompeo about the debt debate and the upcoming august 2 deadline. if you like to get involved,

give us a call. the numbers are on the screen. as always, you can reach us by e-mail and twitter. we want to show kent conrad on e senate floor yesterday arguing that a constitutional amendment provision in the house debt ceiling bill absolutely guarantees that the bill is going to fail in the senate. we will take a look and then we would get your response. >> no serious person can fail to understand that putting an amendment to the constitution of the united states that is deeply flawed into that package absolutely guarantees that it cannot pass in this chamber. that would take a two-thirds vote.

i do not believe it would even command a simple majority here. host: mike pompeo, your thoughts about what kent conrad had to say. is the balanced budget amendment to make or break to you? guest: you hear the difference between people who had been here too long and those who have just arrived. i consider myself a very serious person and he suggests that i am not. i came at thi with very serious intent. i am deeply troubled at the state of all our fiscal house. there were many democrats who supported a balanced budget amendment before. this is not a partisan affair. it is simply common sense that you have to balance the budget. the state of kansas does it. families do it. churches do it. there is nothing radical about

putting it in the constitution that you would just and the money that you have. i look at him and recognize that his time has come. host: our first call for mike pompeo comes from westmont, virginia. rosy. caller: i was wondering what's the person is going to do with their rent and stuff. i think the senators need to get together and get the package that will pass some people have their income coming in. if we do not pay our rent and stuff, we have no where to live. you need to discuss something so that a deal can be made. guest: i appreciate that

comment. i certainly hope that we confine resolution, too. with respect to social security payments, have sponsored legislation that would require that treasury department to prioritize social security payment should we move past august 2nd into the weeks following and we do not have resolution to the debt ceiling issue. we know that the government collects a lot of money every day, from american taxpayers. if social security checks to not go out next week, call the white house. they have the resources and the money. it is available free if they do not make such security payments on august 3, it is because they chose not to do so. host: franken on line for independents. caller: had we cut our military spending after the cold war, we still would of been spending seven times more thanhe rest of the industrialized world. we probably would not be in this

situation. the tax cuts that we have had over the past 30 years have not lead to any type of productive results. it just seems that you are fighting over things and you do not want to do anything that may raise revenue. after world war ii, we had a situation where we were charging 90% in taxes on the ridge trying to make up for the problems that we have. now we he super problems and you do not want to raise taxes at a. guest: frank, thanks for your questions. is the case that i'm opposed to raising taxes. i do not believe that we have a problem with the amount of revenue we are collecting. we're just saying yeso too many things. i do want to talk about the cold

war. i was in the army from 1986- 1991. i was serving in east germany patrolling the border when the berlin wall came down. i know exactly what happened when the cold war ended. and it is the case that our department of defense has waste and fraud and we need to attack that. as someone who is a former soldier, i know what is there. indeed, one of the very first acts i took as a new member of congress was to put an amendment on the floor to end the debate over house resolution no. 1 which would reduce this spending and the department of tents for a program that i thought made no sense. i agree that we have to do national security right but not one penny more. host: you have a background in the aerospace industry. on camera, we have a list of projected revenues of $172 billion that would be not a enough to pay these bills it the

debt ceiling is not raised three number three on that his defense vendors. guest: there will definitely be prioritization. there is a question about how much and win with respect to tax load. but there is no doubt that shortly after august 2, there will have to be choices made about which invoices get paid. i hope we do not get to that point. is my expectation that we will find a solution, which is what the american people are looking for, in the next couple of days that avoids that. but we cannot is leave the next generation and the worst place. the president belies that we can raise a little more revenue and we can just are a little bit more money. i believe it is time for america to do the right thing and began to put its house back on the right fiscal trajectory. we're not asking to solve all these problems. we do not tackle th things that

will save medicare. save medicaid and social security. weo not even begin to tackle this is part of the discussion. we're simply talking about discretionary spending. host: on this list of priorities of people they get paid, should the debt ceiling not get rates, veterans affairs is on the list. but they are no. 10, and number nine is military pays. would you like to see them higher on the list? who would you move do? guest: i like to see them move up higher on the list. one of the things that we know is that if we have soldiers in harm's way, buthey andheir families must be taken care of. there are plenty of resources to take care of that. but i do not want to plot over that. it is absolutely the case that it will be incredibly difficult decisions to make in the weeks and ys ahead.

there'll be folks who are depending on the things that come from the federal government in the short term. so we have to get a solution in the next few days. host: representative mike pompeo as in his first term representing the fourth district of kansas. next is our line for democrats -- republicans, i'm sorry. caller: i am a retired military person. i spent 27 years in the united states army. i am concerned about what is going on in this country. as i talk to people who come back from overseas now, the first question out of their mouth is, what happened to my country? we go fight for the freedom and we come home and find out the freedom is not here. things like the military retirees at federal income tax hike. mind -- but nothing was said by

either side when this happened. we are getting all wonder in my minds what is going on. this administration that we have, the obama administration, has not put very much effort into our military people. it has us very concerned. when you see people like dan jones criticizing the people from the republicans, calling them evil, out to get as, devils. and i am talking about the tea party. van joneses and admitted communist. -- is an admitted communist. guest: i did not serve as long as you and i want to thank you for your service. we have to make sure that we take care of people who of sacrifice so much. in awe of the people

who enter military service today. they know they will be in harm's day. the nation has two fundamental tasks. the government is supposed to keep us safe and the second duty is to get out of the way. when it comes to makingure we do national security right, i'm someone who thinks we should spend every penny that it takes but we have to do it in a way that is fiscally sound. host: a tweet. guest: people paying into the systems,e haveade commitments. i believe that if you make a promise to someone, you ought to keep it. in social security in particular, my father is in his

80's and my son is in his 20's. my father is going to be fine and get his benefits. the system will be around for him. i am very worried about that system being around for my son. i love to see it transition where the federal government took in less resources and the it next generation could take care of themselves. but wh we cannot do is what the president has put forward. the president has said that it is fine. let's leave it alone and not touch medicaid or social security. let's let them continue on their current path. that is irresponsible and we have to do everything we can to provide a fiscal trajectory that allows those programs to continue. host: mike pompeo mentioned that he patrolled the iron curtain before the fall of the berlin wall. he did not mention that he graduated first in his class at west point and went on to harvard law school.

we will take another call on our line for democrats. dolores. caller: i have a question because we are shipping jobs overseas and we're buying china's products and we get more and more in debt in -- to china. something should be done to bring the jobs back home because that is where the revenue is falling down. we have shipped all of our jobs over there so that the people here in the united states to not have any work. all of the jobs have been shipped over. then we have the people who come in here illegally and take our jobsand the government still is not doing much abouthat. and they are not paying taxes. they are going out to the welfare office and getting welfare. they are also taking their money and sending it back home.

when they make enough money t live high on the hog back home, they go back home. i happen to know that one of our companies put a place in mexico and yet they turn around and they still come back over here and they still want to work over here in our country because they want it free. we have a bunch of people here they want freedom of the united states, they want to live in our country, but we have thought, my brothers had thought, my father has taught, my uncle, my grandfathers fought for the freedom of this country, and i think that this is ridiculous. the whole united states people hostage what you make this debate. guest:hank you for the call. i appreciate the talk about jobs. that is at the center of this. they are competing visions o this. seven months ago, i was running

a company that was manufacturing and it sold equipment to the oil and gas industry. before that, i had a machine check top. i know exactly what it takes to create jobs in america. we are up against the president who is the anti-president -- anti-business president and the entire history of the united states. every step he has taken is something that has destroyed jobs. we had 2.5 million jobs lost since he was lost, 1.8 million since the stimuluslan for what we can do to create jobs in america is simple. at the federal level, we create an environment to invest capital in the country. lowering taxes would encourage businesses to grow companies here. we tell our regulators, we want safe drinking water and clean air, but we do not need to destroy industry in america and send it to mexico and china because of the burdensome

regulations. it cost us to have the 9.2% unployment that weave here today and i came here to put the federal government back in a place where folks will want to invest and grow and amicans can go back to work. host: in the "washington post" this morning, talking about state and local cutbacks. it up to restrict growth to an anemic levels. your thoughts.

guest: it is devastating. we cannot have growth of 0.4% and hope to have job replacements any where close to what america needs. you talk about the states and the impactn states. that has been a long time coming. the states do not have the benefit of a printing press like we have at the federal government. they have to balance their budget. we have delayed that pain with the stimulus plan. sent money down to the states and attended for years that states did not have to do difficult things and make good decisions for their own balance sheets. it is not a retraction to to the size of state government. the governments have gotten too big as well and they are starting to do the right thing. you see what happens in wisconsin and ohio and now kansas where we have governors working hard to create environments where people want to grow busisses again. host: next tuesday all on our

line for republicans. -- next is dale on our line for republicans. caller: my question -- i am 47. i am on medicare. and medicaiand social security. one of my daughters is on social security and medicaid. iraq and what i am trying to ask you is, they put our stuff on the table and shoveled it around like it was nothing, to push it from one side to the other side. my question is, when that

senator got shot, everyone agreed that there would be no more and name calling, downgrading, or anything like that. and that they would work together as a body. well now, we are in a situation where we have got deadline august the second, and has everyone forgotten what they said live on tv on channel 5, on c-span, that they would agree not to do name-calling? and that they would agree to work together as a body? because everything really boils down, the bible says that when the body of christ is full, that is when god is going to come and take us out of here. host: we will leave it there. guest: i'd do my best every day to not engage in name-calling. it is important. we have deep, deep policy issues facing our country.

so it is not about this president as a person or any senator as a person. it is about the policies that they undertaken their vision about what they think is the right course for america. on that we have an obligation to fight them and evade and make argument for why it is that i believe that the american people said on november 2nd of last year, enough. enough spending, stop. let's make the federal government the humble organization that it needs to be. go back and read the history of our foundingathers and they fought vigorously, deep debates about this very sa set of issues. how big should the federal government be? the government broke a promise back at the new deal. it moved from those constitutional moorings and we need to get back to the right place. the debate this weekend is sincere and i think both parties deeply believe that things that they talk about. i think that they are honest.

we just have competing visions for what the federal government ought not look like. host: c.j. since this e-mail -- sends this e-mail. r. the freshman class, a freshman republicans, are they testing the leadership of speaker boehner and representative eric cantor? guest: i do not see it that way. the freshman class came in with a dferent mandate from the american people -- from the american people. elections have consequences. we're still livinto the consequences of the election of 2006 and 2008. they we very different elections where the people sent a very different group of people to washington, d.c.

the freshm class has come here with a deep conviction of what we oht to guest: there were many folks trying to do the work of conservativeeadership. i don't think it breaks out freshman at verses those who have been there a little bit longer you see a disproportionate number of folks who came here, like me, from the business world who want to come here and to our best and america back in the pla it is supposed to be. i am 47 years old and i hope to get back to the private sector before too terribly long. host: there is a significant number of freshman republicans who identified themselves as part of e tea party movement. part of the criticism has been that they are more faithful to the tea party than they are trying to workithin their

party's system here in washington on capitol hill. what would you say to that? guest: i think that misunderstand what happened last november. i have heard folks say that. the tea party sentiment is something that i fully embrace. this notion of liberty and limited government is a thing that i hear when i talk to folks who are self-identified members of the tea party. those are the people i go to church with. those of the people i work with. these are people who recognize that folks in washington, d.c. ha lost their way over the last decade. when folks say you are beholden to the tea party, i think the truth is is that we are committed to a vision of a smaller government host: our next call for mike pompeo, decrats line. caller: good morning, i have a

couple of comments. i heard buddy thinks this medicare, medicaid is free. -- everybody thinks this medicare, medicaid is free. medicare cos my wife and i $86 per month for it for us to get medicaid, costs us $300 per month. how is that fair to us? i was watching c-span yesterday and on the republican side, you see these young kids running around in the house. that is no place for kids. with the seriousness of the business we have at hand. it is uncalled for. let the big boys to see what is

going on. if is no place for kids. guest: with respect to medicare, one of the things that is driving the enormous projections of deficits are entitlement programs. they take up an enormous amount of the federal budget. when you read the reports, we are 15-years away from bankrupting the medicare program your payment every month will be far insufficient to make sure that you continue to receive that benefit. it is one of the reasons that republicans have taken a very serious approach to resolving the crisis, that medicare crisis, which will be upon us before we know it. when we pass the budget plan as best year, we said we would take care of folks 55 and older. we also said we will not allow a

15-member board of un elected people to decide her fate and the medical treatment that you will or will not get. we put forth a plan the to make sure that medicare is around for you and the next generation. i hope we can get democrats to join us on that host: plan was theeid's only plan, would you vote for it? gut: i will oppose it this afternoon. if that is the only no plan, i only n and i suspect we will improve on that a great deal and will get this thing resolved. host: you called president obama irresponsie and reckless. is there anything he can do to regain respect from republicans? >> it is not about respect. i respect that he is doing his level best just as i do every day when i come into work. what i hope he will do is begin

to do things differently. let me give you a first and example. in south-central kansas we make jets. when the general aviation aircraft and commercial airplanes. that was the business i was in for many years. this president goes on the air and instead of presenting a plan, he talks about fat cat corporations building airplanes. the folks impacted by the kind of irresponsible language are welds and mechanics and union workers and suppliers and restaurant owners in south- central kansas that rely on manufacturing of general aviation aircraft. it is a fundamental misconception about how economies work. if you continue to mock an industry that is the last jewell in the american manufacturing

crown it will leave -- we should hold these people up as paragons of examples. they created a tool for people to fly around in and instead, the president just talks about them being corporate fat cats while he fliearound in air force one. host: we will go back to the telephones. our next call is on the republican line from orlando, florida. caller: good morning, gentlemen. thank you for taking my call. we all need to get along. we have to. obama need to bring us together like the leader that we voted him in to be. also, this is like the 10-year anniversary of 9/11.

that was all about financial. congratulations, al qaeda, we gave you the greatest gift. you divided and conquered. i am in the tea party a the way i see it, we are all in the tea party. you have to opt out. i am tired of being insulted. what your not sure question was. i would agree that we should not insult anyone. i tried not to insult anyone for my entire campaign. i have heard haverail agains those who participate in the tea party. i find that not the way political discourse should be. i talked to folks across the aisle all the time. there are debates within our own party over what that right course of action is. i do this respectfully every day and you should do it as

intelligently as you can. you should do what you think you were elected to do. i think that is what you see taking place today. i think it is healthy. both parties used to say yes to everything. that is how we got here. today we see people whoay we have to back away from that. i'm thankful what the american people did on november 2, 2010. host: do you consider yourself a member of the tea party? guest: yes, i embrace the principles as the mainstream tea party -- freedom, liberty, and small government. i consider myself to be part of that host: baltimore, maryland, on our line for democrats. caller: thank you for takingy call. i am excited to get a chance to speak with c-span. i have watched for years and this is the first time i had a

chance to speak. you just mentioned civility. as a democrat, i find that a little strange. i recall when president obama was addressing congress and joe wilson from south carolina insult him and yelled out an insult in a joint session of congress. i hope the congressman will condemn that. on the issue of the budget, cut, cap, and balance, they call it, what will the coness and cut? can he imagine what would happen to people if you woke up tomorr and took $1 trillion from this fragile economy and what the results would be? i don't respect tea party members.

they ran around and all of this debt was being built up by bush and never heard anything from them. they came on the scene when the black guy became president. guest: i find your last comment outrageous, to suggest that folks who believe in small government and freedom have a racial motivation. i find that at lawrence. abhorrence. t. i represent people who have lots of different views. can i imagine what would happen to market the federal government dropped $1 trillion from the economy? i can. business people would begin to invest again. all of a sudden, people would say their taxes are low and i have more money to spend on my family or can give to charity.

i can absolutely imagine what it would look like if the government took in $1 trillion less. if the stimulus had been done differently, the president's version of economic groh -- growth was the best -- if i bring the money to washington, d.c. and run for the political process and decide what to get it -- d decided wt to get it, the economy will grow. he thought we would not have employment over 8% but we know how that ended. i can absolutely imagine what would happen if we took that money out of the system. i don't think we would have 1.3% gdp growth or 44 million people on food stamps today. host: if you were starting from

scratch and tryinto put together a plan to reduce the deficit and avoid having to deal with the debt increase, are there one or two mbers of the house on the other side of the aisle that you would be willing to reach over to that you think you could work with to try to set something up that wld solve the crisis? guest: i think we find lots of go will on the other side. i have only been here for seven months so i have not had an opportunity to develop relationships with even those on my side of the aisle. i sit on the energy and commerce committee. there are good people over there trying to help make america more energy independence and some of those folks think we can't do this. -- things we can do this. there are folks over there, for

sure. it does not fall on democratic and republican lines and we did not get here because republicans were the party of small government in the past 20 years. we spend too much as ll. host: our line for independence, calling out of kansas city, missouri. caller: 94 cspan. -- thank you for cspan. host: he is a rresentative. he is not a senator yet. caller: you have medicare and medicaid -- is your salary up or being cut? what about your retirement?

i think you are all playing games, democrats and republicans and that is why i am independent. i believe everybody should be an indepeent. guest: we certainly need to do our nation's business regardless of whether we have a d or an r behind our name. you talked about cutting in different place we have to cut everywhere. since i have been here, we have reduced the number -- the amount of money our offices spend for legislative business. we have now done it twice. i would love to take on this challenge and go back in the private sector and take nothing from the federal government. i did not come here for that. i came here because i think we are at an inflection point.

i hope i can be part of tipping it back in the right direction. so we can all watching c-span as much, no offense intended. there is so much focus in washington, d.c. that people have to take time out of their ordinary day to know they nuances of what is going on in washington, d.c. i would rather have them at their city council meeting or their school board meetings. if i had my way, washington, d.c. would be so much smaller. to watch.e's plenty we will tell you more about that in a second. we want to take this last call for representatives pompeo, from columbus ohio, go ahead. caller: thank you.

this is the first time i have never called into cspan. -- i have ever called into cspan. have they ever thought -- people are not going to propose the eggs. every time i hear him talk, he is tking about how he wants to see tax cuts to the coorations' and people that own jets. he also does not want to put everythi on the backs of the middle class. why can't they come to some kind of agreement over some of those prosals that he has said he is willing to accept? guest: i hope we hacan come to some kind of agreement.

the proposals put forth by the house of representatives i think begin to put us down the right path. they don't fix all of our nation's ills. we got here over 40 years or 60 years. low-tech as a little while to get out of this. we are at an important point. we cannot spare this challenge in the face and step back from it. we have to push through and push forward. we have to begin to do the right thing. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> tomorrow on "newsmakers," on the gop straw poll in the field of candidates. also, the role of next year's iowa caucus.

"newsmakers" at 10:00 a.m. eastern and 6:00 p.m. eastern, subject to the debt and deficit bills on capitol hill. >> that figure that is removing the veil of ignorance is an american invention. it is classical for what this is all about. >> if you missed the latest documentary, "the library of congress," there is a preview on the youtube channel. been notified of all the latest videos and watch the entire concert -- documentary and hundreds of videos online on youtube.com/cspan. >> we will continue our look at the debt and deficit throughout the weekend. tomorrow on a "road to the white house," representative thaddeus

mccotter, also the stated the u.s. economy, and his strategy to win the gop nomination tomorrow at 6:30 p.m. eastern. the house and senate will be in session today. the house will dabble in at noon beginning legislative work at 1:00 p.m. the senate is in at 1:00 p.m. eastern as both chambers continue to work on plans to raise the debt ceiling. next, congressman tim ryan from this morning's "washington journal." he has said he does not like either the house or senate plan because of their impact on the middle class. we will show you as much of this as we can before the house dabbles in. -- gavels in. host: we continue our discussion on the debt debate with tim ryan. welcome to the program. guest: good to be here. host: you have said you don't like either plan and the house

or the senate. tell us why and what you would propose to replace them? guest: the fact that there is no revenues on the table -- i feel like we're debating two republican plans. no revenue and it is ambiguous as to when the cuts will come. any short-term cuts will hurt the recovery that we are in. in both instances, it is unfair and that economics. host: revenues is another word for taxes. who would use tax and how much? guest: no one in the short term but i think we start with the top 1%. they have had a really good 20 or 30 year run. they have made a lot of money if you look at their real income in the late 1970's it was about 9% of the total real income in the country and now it is 25%. to have these discussions where

we will cut discretionary spending and pell grants and head starts in early investment research and that the same time not ask the top 1% to be a part of solving the problem, i think that is irresponsible. i think you start there, nothing now because of the economy, and down the road, you let it kick in. host: earlier on the program, which hadmike pompeo and represents a district that includes companies that produce corporate jets. he says it is not fair to target them for tax increases. what are your thoughts? guest: is not fair to tax someone for corporate jets but it is okay to cut pell grants? that is so unbalanced that it is not funny. if you have enough money to purchase a corporate jet, you

will by the corporate jet regardless of much of what is happening around you. when you are looking at these investments we're starting to cut, down the road it makes us look competitive as a country. everyone is ok with all these caps and cutting discretionary spending but if you go to the corporate jets and oil companies or the top 1% cycle all of a sudden, it is class warfare. host: we're talking with representative tim ryan, a member of the house budget committee. we're talking about the debt debate and we would like you to get involved if you have not called in the last 30 days. you can also send us massey via email and twitter.

we want to show part of the president's radio address that will be played later this morning. he says the parties are not that far apart and must -- compromise by tuesday. >> the parties are not that far apart we are in agreement about how much spending money to cut to reduce the deficit and we agree of a process to tackle tax reform entitlement reform. there are plenty of ways out of this mess but there is very little time. we need to reach a compromise by tuesday so that our country will have the ability to pay its bills on. thai bills like social security checks and veterans' benefits and contracts we have signed with thousands of american businesses. if we don't come up for the first time ever, we could lose our country's triple a credit rating not because we did not have the capacity to pay our bills s but because we did not have a political system to match it.

for those who reflexively opposed tax increases on anybody, a lower credit rating could be a tax increase on everybody. we would all pay higher interest rates on mortgages, car loans, and credit cards. host: representative tim ryan, go ahead guest: i think he has articulate where we are. there does need to be compromise. there is a level of frustration that we are compromising between two republican plans right now. at some point, it looks like they will need democratic votes in the house to get this thing passed. there is no democratic values represented. in the plan. the only thing worse than both of these plants is a default. i think the president clearly articulated what that would look like with higher interest rates throughout the economy. that is a bad deal all the way around. it will be an interesting couple

of days. host: the republicans say the president has not presented a plan of his own. guest: that is pretty disingenuous. the president has sat down with them and bent over backwards. his suggestions have been to the right of most americans and to the right of most republicans. still, john boehner walk er comeic cantor walked out. the president has clearly showed an enormous amount of patience and history will judge him as one of the most patient presidents that we have had a net long time. host: representative tim ryan is in his fifth term representing the 17th district of ohio. our first call for the representative comes from illinois on airline for republicans. caller: good morning.

this is in reference to the corporate tax break on corporate aircraft. break ort a tax subsidy that was passed by congress and wasn't the purpose of that to serve as an inducement to get businesses to spend money buying jets in order to prop up the american small jet airline industry? with respect to paying taxes and you made the reference that corporations can afford it, i also recall a number of years ago there was a luxury tax that was passed because the rich could afford to buy yachts and they could obviously pay that tax. the consequence of that tax was that it really hurt the yacht- building industry. it roundup in bill loss of how

many thousands of job. guest: when was this? caller: it was sometime either in the late 1980's or early 1990's. it was a luxury tax that was a democratic idea that was passed. it was great -- it greatly damaged that industry and many people lost their jobs. congress quickly reversed itself and got rid of that tax. guest: this is the debate we're having. is there anyone in the country that can help us get more revenue in the coffers? you don't want to tax corporate jet owners and you don't want to tax yacht owners, and you don't want to tax the top 1%. i am not here because i hate rich people. our country is in dire consequences. if we don't have the guts to ask

somebody who owns a yacht or owns a corporate jet to help us out here, who will we ask? this all needs to be balanced out with the cuts coming in. why aren't people calling about cutting programs and head start programs and the investment we need to make to be competitive? i have sympathy for many people but ultimately, i think the person who has the capacity and the wealth and the wherewithal to buy a yacht is going to buy the yacht regardless of any external circumstances that are happening. host: our next call comes from yucca valley, calif., are democratic line. caller: good morning. thet it a contradiction for government to regulate

businesses? money is collected by the government from the american people specifically for retirement as a security and they appear to be combing old with all the other deaths -- cote mingled with all the other debt. guest: the government passed to provide some regulatory function. there has to be a cop on the beach watching what is going on. one of the problems we got into was the complete collapse of the financial industry. there were not enough, beat watching what was going on and patrolling was going on. we've got to get away from the idea that the government has absolutely no role and responsibility. it has some role and some responsibility. if you want to get back to what we need to talk about and that is job creation, you need sound markets that are regulated by the government.

the government is not perfect but, my goodness, we just have to look back over the last couple of years to see if somebody is not taking -- looking at the private sector, especially wall street, things get out of control rather quickly. host: here is a tweet -- instead of issuing palle grants, let the college endowments cover the cost of the programs. guest: that is starting to micromanage. people left money for those endowments for certain purposes and we don't know what they are. pell grants has been proven to be a good program that increases participation in colleges. it can reduce the burden for

middle-class families. let's invest in this. we can't agree on investing on making college more affordable tax that we are going to be competitive, pell grants are key to invest in. >host: our next call. caller: representative brian, -- rep ryan, we are getting two-one and a balance of trade issues. when i go back to these trade agreements that we set up and balance them out? if it means import duties to equalize things, do that as revenue. why go after the small people in the country? this is wrong. guest: i think you hit the nail right on the head.

one issue i have been pushing for the last seven years and finally got a vote on a tour the tail end of the last congress is the issue of china's currency manipulation. there is one thing we can do that is bipartisan that would stimulate job creation and investment in the united states which is dealing with the fact that china manipulates their currency. they get 25%-40% advantage on their products that come into the united states. we pass this bill with almost 380 votes in the congress. that was probably the most substantive bipartisan vote we had last year. currency is china's a prominent one and one that needs to be dealt with immediately. i think we should address that issue with balance of trade. we send $1 billion per day out of our country primarily for the gas tank to other countries.

that contributes to the balance of trade. energy independence policies is a portfolio that drives investment back to the united states and creates jobs in the united states. it would not only create jobs -- host: burlington, n.c., on airline for republicans. caller: good morning. i'm a registered republican. i have been a democrat and an independent and now online -- and now i'm i'm a registered republican because i have been dissatisfied with everyone involved. guest: it sounds like it. caller: this is my personal opinion -- we need to get back to a total capitalistic economy. we need to quit picking winners and losers. we need to cut out all the subsidies. let the companies led by their bottom line. this is a republican speaking,

sir. there has got to be spending cuts. there has got to the caps on spending and there has got to be a balanced budget amendment because there is no discipline in washington. if you have a cut off line like that have in my home, we will have to live within our means. guest: are you on medicare? caller: no, i am not, i am working individual. >guest: will you be on medicare? caller: eventually. guest: if you go to the paul ryan plan, you would pay $6,000 more out of pocket. caller: i understand that but when you have a certain amount of money and you are trying to protect a program that for everyone there has to be balanced. guest: i agree with balance.

these two plans that we are debating now are not balanced plants. there are enough loopholes in the tax code that you could drive a truck through them. one of the propositions is to start closing down some of those tax expenditures were big corporations are benefiting from it. there are huge loopholes that businesses are benefiting from. if we have true tax reform, we can close those tax loopholes and in many instances lower everybody's tax rate. i would be for an increase on the top 1% of the people to help solve this problem. the tax incentives in the tax code right now are costing us trillions of dollars. et --.here is a twea guest: i think that could be on the table for overall tax reform.

there are some exemptions and that for the poor. you don't want to have people to have an additional tax on the poor who spend a greater percentage of their income in the marketplace. they're spending more on food and clothing and the necessities so they would get hit harder with a sales tax. we need to have tax reform and everything needs to be on the table. my fundamental principle is that the folks who are benefiting most from being in america, the court system, the transportation system, the military, all the benefits of being in the united states that allow you to come here and make a lot of money, we can keep business taxes low wants to start making millions of dollars per year, you need to help us continue to reinvest into this system and train our work force and make sure we have research and development

and make sure we are on the cutting edge of innovation around the world. if there is the principle of fairness and the tax code, i would welcome that. host: our next call comes from south carolina, our line for democrats. caller: i am calling because i am concerned about the way this situation is being handled in our congress about the budget and the debt ceiling. i cannot understand how the past president was able to raise the debt ceiling seven or eight times and even under ronald reagan, 17 times, and now they're is a real system -- and now there's a real necessity and it is a big problem and no one can see eye to eye on what needs to be done. we and our small town are fighting everything to have food

on our table. there are people sitting up there making thousands of dollars of taxpayers' money. they are paid by us and yet they cannot seem to come together to help us. i don't understand how much disrespect when president and/or in a -- endure in a term. eric cantor and rand paul are disrespectful to the president. joe wilson was disrespectful to the president. how can we sit here and hard about the republicans or the democrats when we the american people are the ones being held hostage to this debt ceiling increase. guest: i agree. most presidents in the last few years have endured a great deal of disrespectful talk and accusations all across the

board. your level of frustration is something you can feel across the country right now. no one is addressing the issue of jobs. that is the number-one issue when i am home that people talk about, not just creating jobs, but the level of underemployment, the level of people in northeast ohio who had a good manufacturing job making $25 per hour and had good benefits and now they are working a job paying $11 per hour and that has been happening for the last couple of decades. we have seen wages stagnant for 30 years. i think the level of the problems within our political system have been because of the economic insecurity of people across the country. he saw the election in 2006 and obama in 2008 and the tea party movement in 2010. the single thread between all of

those movements has been the economic insecurity in the country. we have to get back on how we can create jobs. we have a 20% unemployment rate in construction. let's get these people back to work. these are investments that need to get done anyway. we have people who need to go to work. let's make the decision as a country to say to make this investment and rebuild america now. that will help business and get average people back to work that it will jump-start the economy. host: if there is no form -- if there is a new form of the john boehner bill and that stands between the government defaulting are not, would you vote for those bills? guest: if it comes to economic collapse, i would be inclined to support the reid bill.

i am upset with the fact that the wealthiest are not being asked to sacrifice a single thing. 2011, we are at the brink of collapse, and no one in washington, d.c. has the guts to go at somebody who makes $1 million per year who and maybe possibly help us solve this problem. to me, it is disgusting. host: the reid bill will come up in the house later today, will you vote for it? guest: no. host: next is our line for republicans. caller: common sense tells you that when you raise taxes on corporations -- guest: i have not said one time to raise taxes on corporations. i said to raise money on individuals. caller: when you raise the taxes on small business and

corporations, they turn around and pass it down to the cost of doing business to the poor people and the middle class. if you're going to appoint a commission, you should let john boehner picked the democrats and harry reid pick the republicans. when they form a commission, the republicans loaded up the far right and services and the democrats loaded up the far left liberals and nothing gets done. guest: i think that is a great idea. that is not a bad way to go about it. that should certainly be entertained. i am for keeping business taxes low. in order for us to be competitive, we need to reduce our corporate tax rate. i think we should lead business flow of blood money flow within businesses and lead business make these investments.

when you make a lot of money off the business environment in the united states, the stability we have here, one to benefit from all that and make a lot of money, you have an obligation to help keep that system going. i like the idea of keeping business taxes low but ultimately when you start making money, you have to help us out. host: ohio, on our line for independents. caller: good morning. host: where is mentor, ohio? caller: near cleveland. host: that is not an representative brian's district? caller: no, it isn't. if you're serious about setting

sells security, just take the $500 billion that you took out of medicare for obama care and put it back into cells -- into medicare. cap the pensions at 500,000 -- $5,000 per month. take the money out of your pension fund and pay for obama care. guest: obama care is paid for. the congressional budget office said obama care was not only paid for but in the first 10 years, it will reduce the deficit by $160 billion and in the second year -- second 10 years, $3 trillion. we have to find savings in medicare program because there was so much abuse going on especially with the private insurers within medicare. there is a lot of ways to the medicare program.

it is a system that is not coordinated enough in so many different ways. that will provide savings in the long run. obama care is saving us, according to the congressional budget office, $1.30 trillion in the second 10 years. as far as social security, it is probably one of the easiest problems to fix. it is figuring out how to do it. they could do means testing or revenue. we can fix that one. host: new york, on our line for democrats. caller: good morning. i am heartsick to see what is going on in this country. i am 56 years old and disabled. i don't know if my check will come in on tuesday.

i don't know if i will be living outside because they will cut hud. when is the last time that republicans voted for a federal income tax? guest: good question. host: we will leave it there. we will move on to clarksville, mississippi, republican line. caller: i am on medicare and have always been on it. this year, i was on medicaid for two years because i had irreversible health problems. i worked for 35 years. >> we leave the last units of this program. it will take to the u.s. house of representatives, gabbling in. representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the

u.s. house of representatives.] the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the chair lays before the house a communication from the speaker. the clerk: the speaker's room, washington, d.c., july 30, 2011. i hereby appoint the honorable ted poe to act as speaker pro tempore on this day. signed, john boehner, speaker of the house of representatives. the speaker pro tempore: the prayer will be offered by our chaplain, father conroy. chaplain conroy: let us pray. dear god, we give you thanks for giving us another day. we ask your special blessing upon the members of this people's house. as so many americans have communicated to them this past week, there is great concern for our future. give all members wisdom, patience, discernment and courage to use the information they have, the broader understanding of the national concerns and the responsibility they have been given to lead this nation into a balanced and secure future. grant a double portion of a

great prophet's spirit. bless them, o god, and be with them and with us all this day and every day to come. may all that is done be for your greater honor and glory. amen. the speaker pro tempore: the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings and announces to the house his approval thereof. pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1 the journal stands approved. >> mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia rise? mr. connolly: mr. speaker, pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1, i demand a vote on the speaker's approval of the journal. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on agreeing to the speaker's approval of the journal. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. mr. connolly: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia rise? mr. connolly: on that matter i would ask for a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentleman from virginia ask for the yeas and nays? mr. connolly: i do indeed. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested.

those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will please rise. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this question are postponed. the pledge of allegiance will be led by the gentleman from minnesota, mr. paulson. mr. paulsen: all in the gallery, please join in the pledge. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the speaker pro tempore: the chair will entertain up to 15 requests for one-minute speeches on each side. for what purpose does the gentleman from minnesota rise? mr. paulsen: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from minnesota is recognized for one minute. mr. paulsen: thank you, mr. speaker. last weekend in eden prairie, minnesota, i had the privilege

of attending a 5-k run in remembrance of u.s. major voise who lost his life when his offspring helicopter tragically went down in afghanistan. and now his family and friends have found a way to honor his life and sacrifice through an annual event that is now used to raise funds for a college scholarship awarded to students at eden prairie high school where randy graduated in 1985. in addition to this scholarship, his run seeks to raise awareness of the contributions of our men and women in uniform that they make every day to keep america free. the major may not live us but his memory lives on through his family and friends and his community and through the scholarships through the local high school students that share his values. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from ohio rise? mr. kucinich: mr. speaker, i ask permission to address the house for one minute.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from ohio is recognized for one minute. mr. kucinich: as congress struggles to come up with this deal over government debt, we all know that all we had to do was raise the debt ceiling, and the chaos that the country is being thrown into is not needed. raise the debt ceiling. protect the u.s. and then debate how to cut our debt afterwards. the game involves the rating services. in particular, standard & poor's. rating agencies help put the u.s. economy in the dumper in 2008. dodd-frank was the first effort to hold rating agencies accountable when in fact they should have been subject to civil fraud charges as well as revocation of their licenses at the s.e.c. just a few months after dodd-frank passed, standard & poor's strikes back with a threat to downgrade u.s. debt, a downgrade which would cost u.s. taxpayers billions of dollars in extra interest payments. when we work to raise the debt

ceiling we should also raise questions about standard & poor's. maybe it's time to downgrade standard & poor's to junk status. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from michigan rise? mrs. miller: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from michigan is recognized for one minute. mrs. miller: mr. speaker, i'm going to tell a story that happened this past week which i think is a vivid display of the human spirit and heroism as well. there's a fellow named michael trapp who had a lucky week. he was flying his cessna airplane from new york to wisconsin and unfortunately had engine problems. the radio traffic -- air traffic control tower lost contact with him and he crashed his airplane in lake huron. i represent a district in michigan. this fellow crashed his airplane -- i would say fortunate crashed his airplane right at the tip of the thumb

here. so the coast compared was having a full search and rescue. the marine division is out looking for him. a day went by. the night went by. couldn't find this fellow. some very, very good friends of mine, dean and diane pettiprin while boating in their boat and diane sees a fellow waving his sock in the middle of lake huron and they saved that man's life. and i just think with everything happening in washington here this week, it's good for us to take a moment and think about the human spirit and the people who have charitable and caring hearts. with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back her time. for what purpose does the gentleman from rhode island rise? mr. cicilline: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from rhode island's recognized for one minute. mr. cicilline: mr. speaker, a lot of the commentators have been talking about the debt creel, the market, the -- ceiling, the market, the jobs number. what we should be talking about is people. people looking for help from a congress that doesn't seem

interested. americans are tired of watching wall street speculators, c.e.o.'s and big corporations call all the shots. people made comments that understand -- focuses on making their lives better. unfortunately, because of politics in washington and extreme ideology, that's not happening. my republican colleagues have been very public about their interpretation to take apart medicare and medicaid to pay for yet another tax cut for the millionaires and billionaires and to preserve subsidies for big oil companies. they've decided our current economy is the fault of the american people and now they're going to empty middle-class pockets to pay for it. the talk in washington now is driven by ideology that really has nothing to do with cost savings or preserving the american people. what really it is about is who suffers and who dreams and ideology is more important than job creation and social security and medicare aren't worth paying for anymore. it's time we spend opportunity and protect the middle class. it's time to focus on the real crisis in america, the jobs crisis. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the

gentleman from south carolina rise? mr. wilson: mr. speaker, i ask permission to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from south carolina is recognized for one minute. mr. wilson: mr. speaker, led by the positive leadership of speaker john boehner, house republicans passed the best bipartisan solution to the debt ceiling last week, the cut, cap and balance act of 2011. liberals in the senate chose to hide and had a tabling vote to th avoid a current vote on the issue. i urge liberals to join conservatives to vote for a solution that will create jobs and stop the president who is stuck on tax increases to destroying jobs. the president does not have a plan. he even admits he's bluffing. sadly, this was further availed yesterday when the gross domestic product was reported to be stagnant. additionally the front page headline today of "the washington post" proclaims, quote, economic growth at near stand still, end of quote.

the president should change course and work for bipartisan proposals to create jobs and preserve the nation's credit rating. in conclusion, god bless our troops and we will never forget september 11 and the global war on terrorism. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. members are advised to refrain from making inappropriate comments about the senate. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from illinois rise? >> i ask permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman from illinois is recognized for one minute. ms. schakowsky: there is absolutely no excuse for this reckless, unpatriotic behavior on the part of the republicans. the looming default crisis could be resolved in five minutes by simply raising the debt ceiling. as was done seven times under bush and 18 times under ronald reagan. this is the exact opposite of fiscal responsibility. the republicans led by their tea party radicals are determined to cripple government and to destroy medicare, medicaid and social security while leaving untouched a hair on the head of

millionaires and billionaires and corporations that pays zero in taxes. i say to the republicans, stop it. seniors call sobbing about their social security checks. our soldiers in afghanistan repeatedly ask admiral mullen yesterday, will we get paid? will our families get our checks? shame on the republicans for making that happen. in battle, when you accidentally shoot your own, it's called friendly fire. when you deliberately shoot your own it's called fragging. republicans, stop fragging the american economy and the american people. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. poe: i ask permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. poe: mr. speaker, in this time of money crisis, we talk about the fact that we need revenue. congress seems to be addicted to taxation as a form of revenue, but there's another way to raise revenue. did you know, mr. speaker, that

27% of the land owned in the united states is owned by uncle sam? 52% of it in the west is owned by uncle sam. how much is that? that's the size of all of western europe. so maybe we ought to think about uncle sam selling some of that land to americans. not the national parks, not the wetlands, the sensitive areas, but that land by the bureau of land management that does not -- is not in use now. we'll sell some of that and it will be revenue producing because people who buy it will pay taxes. local taxes go to schools and help those schools. something to think about in this time of raising revenue, maybe uncle sam can do without 27% of all of the land in america. let americans own part of america, not just the federal government, and that's just the way it is. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia rise? >> to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore:

without objection. mr. connolly: mr. speaker, as the debate on avoiding a devastating default has progressed over the last several months, we heard from many house republicans the compromise is a dirty word, but the voices we should be listening to are those of the american people. what they've said has been loud and clear. according to nbc journal poll, 53% of independents and republicans want republican leaders to compromise. according to the abc/"washington post" poll 70% of all americans say that house leadership has not been willing to compromise. according to one university poll, 67% of americans believe the debt ceiling compromise should be a balance between spending cuts and revenue. yes, revenue. according to the gallop poll, 57% of americans want a compromised plan. that's republicans. and according to the cbs news poll, 78% of americans would

rather have an agreement that they don't fully support than allow the country to default. mr. speaker, it's long past time we started listening to the american people and reach a compromise to avoid a national default. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan rise? >> to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from michigan is recognized for one minute. mr. mccotter: i thank the gentleman. mr. speaker, the administration and the democratic senate and their posturing show what america knows. we are being neither led nor governed. yet, in their policy irresponsibility they remain united in their party unity. on the right take note. it is unwarranted and ininjurious for a republican to call a tea partyier a hobbit as it is for a tea partyier to call a republican a rhino. we cannot unite america if we divide the movement. consequently, the time has come

for the tea party to grow up and the republican party to wake up and come together to serve and save this great nation. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan yields back his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from oregon rise? mr. defazio: to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from oregon is recognized for one minute. mr. defazio: "the washington post," the united states is a lot like a rich businessman who owns two homes, millions of dollars in stock but is in debt because he talk to out a big lowell loan to buy a private plan. here we are to protect tax cuts for millionaires and billion airs, the job creators, $4 trillion over the last 10 years, loopholes for corporate jets, you know, for private jets, for the oil companies, hedge fund billionaires, to continue tax cuts that haven't created a single job, we're going to cut real investment that would create jobs. we're going to reduce investment in transportation and infrastructure 35%. that's a million jobs gone.

last week you cut off the f.a.a., 0,000 private sector jobs -- 90,000 private sector jobs and government employees. what about those private sector jobs? a lot of them are small businesses. thought you liked small businesses. so we're not only going to cut there, we're going to cut student loans, we're going to cut school nutrition, unemployment insurance, social security and medicare all so the billionaires can keep cruising at 40,000 feet in their private subsidized, tax subsidized jets, above the turbulence. the view looks good from up there and maybe you'll get a ride. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois rise? >> unanimous consent to address the house for one minute, revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. shimkus: thank you, mr. speaker. i taught high school government history for four years. for a bill to become a law it must pass both chambers, then it must be signed by the president. the house has now passed two bills which raise the debt

ceiling, cut spending and addresses a balanced budget amendment to the constitution. this historical reform for the first time ties a debt increase to a cut in spending. it is long past time for the senate to pass something, their negligence threatens the fiscal health of this nation. once they do we conference the bills which is where compromises are then resolved. or we can pick up their bill. but until then the world waits. and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from oregon rise? >> address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from oregon is recognized for one minute. mr. blumenauer: mr. speaker, last night we heard the speaker of the house, john boehner, talk about how he stuck his neck out and offered new revenues. well, if so, instead of chasing the most extreme few tea party members of his caucus to craft an even more unrealistic

proposal, why doesn't he work with 193 democrats to lead congress to the balanced approach that americans want? new revenue would allow basic tax reforms, closing expensive, unjustified loopholes and make the tax code more fair and simple. we can then corporate on sensible reductions in long-term spending where there is already bipartisan agreement for agriculture reform, defense and health care. if john boehner is speaker of the house instead of speaker of the tea party we can start down this path of fiscal stability. answered this artificial crisis -- and end this artificial crisis. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from ohio rise? >> mr. speaker, request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute, revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from ohio is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, for far too long

now previous congresses have treated increases to america's debt ceiling as temporary problems, to be dealt with later on. well, it's now later on and we have to deal with this very serious challenge to america's fiscal health. house republicans have now passed two bills that would end the debt limit crisis while cutting trillions from the deficit. mr. johnson: today the house will vote down the reid proposal. the reid proposal is full of budget gimmicks that the american people are quite frankly fed up with. not only is the reid plan dead on arrival in the house, it appears to be dead on departure from the senate. i urge all of my colleagues to vote against the reid plan today because it's time for every member of congress to join house republicans in producing not a deal but a solution to this debt crisis. one that makes real spending cuts, one that establishes real spending controls, one that

forces the federal government to live within its means and one that doesn't raise taxes on american families and job creators. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york rise? >> ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from new york is recognized for one minute. mr. tonko: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today to talk about the default crisis. and unfortunately we're still talking about giving america the green light to pay her bills. because the plan this body passed just last night has since failed in the senate. here we are again, my friends, here we are again wasting another day as the deadline looms even closer. and while the plan passed in this body last night might have been good politics, it's not good government. my constituents are tired of it, i'm tired of it and actually anyone who watched the nightly news for the last six months is tired of it. washington loves to kick the can down the road. that's how we got here in the first place. this is our moment but will we seize it? we need a plan, not another

republican manifesto -- manifesto and there are better plans out there, plans that would create jobs because the biggest crisis america faces right now is a jobs crisis. plans that will protect medicare and social security and medicaid and plans that rely on a fair approach between spending cuts and asking the most fortunate americans to pay their fair share. mr. speaker, we must compromise and pass that plan, the american people and our economy are counting on us. with that i yield back, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from louisiana rise? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from louisiana is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. after yesterday's action here on the house floor, we have sent not one but two real solutions to this debt and spending crisis over to the senate. the senate's yet to take action on anything. mr. scalise: the president refuses to even submit a plan to solve this problem. all we hear from the president are these divisive class warfare speeches. a speech is not a solution to the problem.

especially when you hear all of this foolishness about corporate jet owners and millionaires and billionaires. if the president got his way, if the president confiscated every dollar from corporate jet owners and millionaires and billionaires, he himself knows that wouldn't solve the problem. and yet what you have is a spending problem in washington. you don't solve a spending problem by sending even more spending to washington. so that they can blow even more money. what we actually need to do is not a balanced approach, we need a balanced budget amendment to our constitution so that you can finally invoke accountability in washington, to solve the spending problem. job-killing taxes, more tax increases, that only gives washington more money to spend. instead of facing the problem, we have got to stop ignoring the problem, the president needs to get his head out of the stand and address the real spending crisis in washington. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from connecticut rise? >> to address the house for one minute, revise and extend.

the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from connecticut is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, last night the republican majority in this house without the support of a single democrat did something very dangerous. mr. himes: and i'm not talking about the pernicious cuts that would damage the least fortunate in our society, i'm not talking about an ill-conceived balanced budget amendment that would surely result in our default, we should debate those things and people of goodwill will disagree on how we do them. i'm talking about the provision that would bring us back in six months to have this discussion again. while americans lose billions of dollars in their retirement accounts, while businesses and our markets face uncertainty. we will do this in six more months because of the republicans. now, i'm a house democrat, don't listen to me on this, listen to "the wall street journal" editorial page. that mouthpiece of malicious malarkey wrote, republicans are not looking like adults to whom voters can entrust the government. mr. speaker, according to "the wall street journal" editorial page, that's just the way it is.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan rise? >> to address the house for one minute, i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. mr. clarke: mr. speaker, i'm here to offer this house today a plan on how republicans and democrats can come together, avoid a government default and do it in a way that really helps the american people. let's cut the true debt that's crushing americans today and it's not the federal debt. americans are underwater on their mortgage, burdened by student loans, maxed out on credit cards. if we help americans cut their own personal debt this will free up money where people can responsibly buy things. businesses will have to hire more people. that's how you create more jobs.

by helping americans become debt-free. mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan yields back his time. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from texas rise? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from texas is recognized for one minute. ms. jackson lee: i thank you, mr. speaker. this morning we joined together to express our commitment to one nation. unfortunately we are in a collapse and a crisis because we are, as my good friend from michigan said, drawn and strangled by those in the tea party who believe that america is -- belongs to only one group. well, i stand here today to say that we must not take to their words that says do not surrender. you don't surrender when you walk on -- work on behalf of the american people. you wonder why the economy is slow, because it is strangled by lack of action. let's join together in a bipartisan way to lift the debt ceiling. if not the president has constitutional authority to lift the debt ceiling and get members

to move forward and this country to be able to protect the 401-k's, social security, medicare and medicaid. mr. speaker, we are one nation, we should represent the people of the united states because we can create jobs, we can move the economy and we can show the world that america is run by adults and we stand for the american people. i believe i stand for one nation and to represent all of the people. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from tennessee rise? without objection, the gentleman from tennessee is recognized for one minute. mr. cohen: thank you, mr. speaker. sometimes art imitates life, sometimes life imitates art. i think today life is imitating art. i often reflect on motion pictures and learn from them and when i came up here it was mr. smith goes to washington. but currently i've been thinking about blazing saddles. remember blazing saddles, mel

brooks and richard prior, they did a movie. they had a city called rock ridge, all-white city of lawless problems and the government appointed a handsome, sharp, young black man to be the sheriff. first black schiff ever in rock ridge. he went there answered wanted the towns folk to help him prepare to beat off the thugs and have a better city. they didn't want to join him. he said, you do it for randolph scott. and they would have done it for randolph scott and realizing that, they helped the sheriff. the republicans, well, there'd do it for george bush and they did it for george bush a lot. thank you, mr. speaker. life imitates art. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york rise? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from new york is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, on august 3 the united states will have $306 billion in obligations and $173

billion to address those obligations. at that moment if the debt ceiling is not raised our nation for the first time in its history will default on its obligations. the cost of borrowing for small businesses, home mortgages, student and auto loans will all increase. mr. higgins: del this will hit hard every american and could push this economy into another recession. the american people want a serious and balanced approach to avoid disaster and deal with their nation's debt problem. they want congress to work in a bipartisan way, to create jobs and new business investment. the house republican short-term bill does nothing to create economic certainty necessary for sustained economic growth. instead it will keep the threat of default alive for months as a continuing drag on this economy. we need a real, long-term bill to provide economic stability and certainty. we need a balanced bill that protects social security and medicare and we need a bipartisan bill that can pass

quickly to prevent default. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia rise? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from georgia is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, i'm grateful. mr. woodall: i heard there was a question about what kind of option we provided for the united states and what can we do to get america out of this crisis? and i know the answer. we've got a lot of choices on their debts, mr. speaker. if you talk to them i hope you'll recommend these. just look on the desk in front of them. they have three good schoices. you want a long-term solution to this challenge? 10 years, look at the house budget plan we sent to the senate in april. 10 years we can solve this crisis. 10 years out into the future, cut $6 trillion out of the budget, put america on track toward fiscal responsibility. 10 years too long? mr. speaker, last week we passed cut, cap and balance. 18-month solution to this problem. 18-month solution. cut spending, cap spending, balances the budget.

two years too long? look at what we sent over last night, mr. speaker. six months. six months. it also cuts, caps and balances, a six-month extension on the debt ceiling. mr. speaker, when you talk to the senate, please tell them, six months, two years, 10 years, the house has acted on all of those, they sit in the senate awaiting on action and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from hawaii rise? >> i request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman from hawaii is recognized for one minute. ms. hanabusa: mr. speaker, people have the right to know what you voted for. i can tell you what it wasn't for. it wasn't for seniors, it wasn't to protect medicare and it wasn't to protect those who need it the most, those on medicaid. so i ask you again, at what price? people speak today about cut, cap and balance. and we know the amendment that came at the 11th hour was on

the balanced budget amendment. so what is this balanced budget amendment that you have put so much faith in? it is not what the people think it is and, mr. speaker, i believe you have an obligation to tell people that the balanced budget amendment doesn't mean you simply can spend only what you take in. it means you might be able to spend only what you take in unless 3/5 of us say you can spend more. that's not what the people think it is. got to stop this facade. as we say in hawaii, stop the shibai, mr. speaker. tell people what they want to know. tell them at what price you are holding this all up. i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york rise? >> to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from new york is recognized for one minute. mr. towns: mr. speaker, i received a call yesterday from a senior citizen in my district

that disturbed me greatly. it tore at my heart to hear that fear in her voice as she begged me to do all that i can to protect senior citizens. and i shurd her i would. she -- aassured her i would. she talked how hard she worked during her life and she kept her part of the bargain, and now she expects her government to do the same. it really bothers me to hear some people suggest that poor americans and senior citizens who get checks from the government are freeloaders. everybody in congress that gets a check from the congress can count themselves as being different. we need to stop, regroup and think about what we are doing. we need to think about all those people who have played by the rules and now we want to change the rules in the middle

of the game. mr. speaker, that is wrong, and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1, the chair declares the house in recess subject to the call of the chair. the impact on our federal troops

has been nothing short of frightening. our navy troop is eroding. we are backing down 50,000 in manpower since 9/11. the army and marines are stretched dangerously thin, separated from their families, and using hardware that has been chewed up by a decade of fighting. >> it forces constant maintenance to keep them in the air. these brave warriors have been willfully neglected for too long. now i understand the admiral mollen, the chairman of the joint chiefs is in afghanistan, visiting with troops, and the question they are asking is if they are going to be paid if this default happens? if senator reid's plan passes, if we stand idly by while this administration goes on the

spending -- spending spree, our military will break. by except in three long years of defense cuts we have allowed ourselves to be distracted by the massive entitlement programs that are bankrupting our country. that stops here. that stops with this committee. the budget that we submitted last night cancels president obama's credit card. it shrinks our government, and most and portents week ithalts three years of neglect to our armed forces. thank you. i would like to ask randy from arizona -- from arizona, i do not know how that came in, from virginia. the chair? the chairman of our readiness subcommittee. >> i want to first thank the

chairman for holding this cconference. over the last several weeks we have heard a lot about the word compromise. overlaid on any type of compromise are two other words, or maybe just one word, we need to make sure we have common sense. we do not understand why it is that democratic administrations constantly believe that we need to compromise our national strategic assets. many of us, when jimmy tatter give away the panama canal scratched our head and said that did not make sense. when the administration started talking about reducing missile defense systems in europe, that did not make a lot of common sense. when we watched as we basically gave the space program away to the russians and the chinese, that did not make a lot of common sense. this takes the cake. when we are looking at $859

billion -- if we let that go through, go quietly in the night with those kinds of cuts, we will watch, said, and preside over the dismantling of the greatest military the world has ever known. that is not just in our words. we had a hearing with the vice chiefs there. each one of them, for one of the first times i have seen, came up and said how devastating cuts of this magnitude would be. if we look at the marine corps, they said specifically that they cannot meet the needs of the combatant commanders today, but if they have to make these cuts, they will have to reduce force structure and have to have a new strategy. if you look to the army, the army general said that it would end the up coming out of the force structure, and have to reduce the forces that we have, and that we could just not sustain those cuts.

if we move to the air force, the general had an interesting thing. he recognized the growth of the chinese, and where they are moving in terms of the development they have. he said something very true and shocking. he said when the chinese say they will have 300 j-20's, you had better believe it. we had better be ready. when we have these cuts, we are already taking a very, very old fleet, and cutting back dramatically. when we look at the navy, the admiral testified with the navy and how difficult it would be to sustain cuts of this magnitude. already, the navy has a $367 million shortfall in the maintenance they have. we have gone from 8% to 22% of failures which is not acceptable

in terms of ships. when you look at the shipbuilding plan the pentagon has presented, they indicate we need a floor of 313 ships. the independent panel said we needed 346. you pick the number. the current ship building plan, according to cbo, why not give us to 313. it will drop bus down to 270, or even 170. at a time when the chinese today, for the first time, have more ships in their navy. we cannot afford to do that with these cuts. that is why we need to take a stand and not allow them to happen. >> thank you. i would like you to hear from the gentleman from florida, alan west, the man who commanded troops in war in the field. where is alan? >> thank you, mr. chairman and everyone for being here.

three weeks ago i had the opportunity to visit our soldiers at hunter army airfield. i talked to the leadership of the combat aviation brigade of the third infantry division who had recently returned back from operations in afghanistan and i heard things that sent a chill down my spine when commanders told me we have to budget for that paper into the barracks. that reminded me of the time i was in fort bragg as a battalion executive officer and had to do the same thing. it reminded me of having to identify his vehicle, a piece of equipment, that basically we had to rate to make sure we had other pieces of equipment equipped. we did not have the spare parts necessary. it reminded me of the time we did not have the artillery ammunition to properly train our crews. it reminded me of a time when friends of mine had to depart

tanks and used golf carts to do tank tactics. it reminded me of a time when i deployed to iraq and we did not have enough body armor. i had to lend my body armor to our driver. they died when he was shot in the chest he had the body armor to ricochet that bullet. i stand here as a congressional representative. having lived through those times in uniform, i will not turn my back on the men and women, some who are my friends, and one is my nephew -- i am not going to turn my back, and allow them to have to suffer and go through the things we went through just so we can have midnight basketball programs that were brought forth from an administration. it says from our constitution that one of our responsibilities as a federal government is to provide for a common defense. perhaps the president should have thought about this before he committed us to an operation

in libya where we are wasting precious american taxpayer dollars. this bill is not acceptable, and i will not stand by and allow the greatest military bob world has ever known, that my father and brother served in, and i did 22 years to serve in, be destroyed. i will not support the bill because of the cuts it brings forth to our military budget. for those that do not remember, you are looking at a person who even before he was sworn in talk about places to cut the defense budget, but it is not about wholesale kuatz, just the same as i have found three wasteful and defense department programs, and we were able to get those eliminated. that is will we need to do instead of across-the-board major cuts it cannot send our

men and women into operations without the right training and equipment. thank you. >> we have with us the chairman of the subcommittee on defense appropriations, mr. bill young from florida. bill, telling what the reid program would do to our military. >> i think you have covered them, but there was an accident on the highway, and i apologize for being late. my comments will be very very brief. the chairman and i'll work together ever since we have both become chairman in this -- and i have worked together ever since we both became chairman. we have determined we will provide for the national defence, and we will make savings where we can. this year, in cooperation with chairman mckeon and the armed forces committee, the subcommittee reduced h-1, the

so-called cr, and be boosted by $18 billion. -- reduced it by $18 billion. for fiscal year 12, we reduced it by $18 billion. we are working to save where we can, but we made very sure that we did not make any reductions that would effect our readiness, or anybody serving in our military, and that is a commitment that we have and that we will keep. part of that commitment will be voting against the harry reid proposal. just one final comment, our investment in our nation's defense, and the men and women that wear the uniform and provide the nation pulled the defense, should not be some magic political number. he should not be pulled out of the hat, and decided on whether we can get the votes.

it should be decided on what is the threat? what is it that the united states of america is going to have to do to maintain our security, and to provide the equipment that alan was talking about, to make sure that when that soldier needs equipment, that is available. that is my commitment. we have kept that commitment. it is a real pleasure for the tremendous bid to of cooperation that exists between the defense appropriations subcommittee and the armed forces committee. thank you very much. good to see you all this morning. >> thank you. any questions? yes. >> can you compare the bill passed in the house yesterday and center harry reid's

proposal, specifically as they relate to military? >> we have a chart over here that shows that. if you take -- i cannot see that one. can you see it? you all have copies, right? maybe you can follow along with me. on the top line, that is the budget that was submitted to lost a year ago, february, from the president. the numbers in those columns are what would be spent in defense over the next 10 years. if you follow down to the fourth line, you see the ryan budget that we passed earlier. now, this has been stated by chairman yawned. we have made cuts in defense. in fact, if you look at the ryan

budget, over the next 10 years, we have cut $315 billion out of defense. if you go down to the next line, the appropriations bill, we have actually cut -- we took those numbers and compared apples to apples -- they are cost of living increases, spread out inflation. we cut $439 billion. we are saying that is it. we gave it. if you look at the harry reid budget, kuatz $859 billion, which is another $400 billion, over and got -- over and above what our defense people are trying to live with right now. the budget that was passed yesterday, the john boehner bill, would freeze our spending

at the level but was passed last year, and next year. so, what we are looking at -- until we have a balanced budget, we can only control two years, a two-year cycle in the congress and that is what that bill will do. yes. >> you all voted for cut kept and balance. if i understand that, cut, cap, and balance puts spending into five or six spending -- spending into five or six different pots. you said it should then be based on a political number. it should be based on the need. square how you can vote for cut, cap, and balance, yet not take the approach that you need across-the-board cuts? >> what we are looking at is going out eight years.

when we get into annual defense budgets that we vote on that become law, the authorization bill and the appropriations bill, and we understand what the environment here is going to be, we are passing our bills. the senate is not. we will end off in a cr. we are going to negotiate, and we have a bottom line we will not go below. >> you may have answered this question, but is there any combination of cuts that you see coming from the senate democrats that you have negotiated already? >> there does not seem to be a lot of negotiating. our speaker has tried since the first of this year -- the first time he met with the president he told him that we would help him because he asked. he wanted us to extend the debt limit.

the speaker told him at that time that we will do that, but we will only do that if we have corresponding cuts in spending, and he has been trying all geared to negotiate. when he gets right up to the line, they move the line. it has been very difficult. i understand we are down to crunch time and there will have to be something negotiated. we will work that out, hopefully before monday. >> in terms of working that out, mitch mcconnell in the senate is the one representing republicans. they said your bill over and are now working on a senate proposal. what is your message to mr. mitch mcconnell in terms of where you are willing to compromise, and where you are not, whether it is the fence or otherwise? >> we all are on the defense committee, authorizing and appropriations. we will not cut below this line

of the $439 billion. you know, where we got here is secretary gates, a couple of years ago, he was talking about not going both a 1% increase in the future over inflation. then, he came up -- i think he saw the train coming down the track and was trying to be pro- active -- he came up with asking the service chiefs to each cut, or cut totaling $100 billion, and they would be able to use that, finding deficiencies, four things are more important. they did that. when he came to us to explain, he said he found another $78 billion, which took out the percentage of the over-inflation he had been talking about a few months earlier, and said we would cut the force of the marines and the army by 47,000, but that is the end.

we will not go any more because it will have to come out of force. we have men and women that have been deployed 5, 6, 7, 8 -- i talked to all marine that was heading over to a afghanistan for his ninth deployment. this is wearing our army and our service people out. we have said that is it. then the president gave a speech and said we have to cut another $400 billion. randy? >> the chairman has test me to look at this from the readiness subcommittee point of view, and the best way to say it is in the senate they want to argue and compromise over numbers. we want to change the system. the reason that is important is because of what chairman beyond just said. if you look at national defense, four questions have always had to be asked and answered. the first one is simply this --

what is the true risk assessment? what is the threat to the united states of america? it is crucial that we asked that question and ask it accurately. the second question is what are the resources of our combat and commanders need to fulfill the mission is necessary to review the missions necessary to defend america from the -- mission is necessary to defend america from those threats? the third is how we get those at the lowest means possible, and the fourth is how to spend those moneys. the only thing the senate has been asking is part of question no. four, which is why do they think we can afford to spend, and what do they want to spend? they have not been asking what their risk the united states of

america assumes if we do not supply the resources necessary for our combat and commanders. what we are saying is we are not going to go there. we are going to ask all four of those questions because that is the only way to defend this country, and with those, we cannot compromise asking those questions because we cannot change the risks of the country faces. >> yes. >> i want to understand this chart. you are saying that $439 billion is your bottom line, but on the chart, even the most generous part of the john deere proposal goes below $439 billion. am i reading that wrong? >> no, that is something, again, when chairman young gets into these negotiations on the cr and sits down with counterparts in the senate, he will fight to keep that line.

do you want to say any more? he just had an operation, and in the hospital they dropped him. can you imagine? >> actually, your answer was better than mine. on defense issues, the senate is usually invest in less than the house is prepared to do. we, in the house, are bound by our allocations that are set by the chairman of the appropriations committee, as determined by the budget resolution itself. i do not think there will be a budget resolution in the senate from members i have talked to. they have told me do not count us being them. been them we are not sure where to go. we have sent our bill.

we will stay within our 302b allocation. we will do everything we can, as the chairman has said. the top number has got to beat one that keeps a secure nation, and there is no question about that. we are just not going to go beyond where we think we can do it safely. the major cuts that we made this year were made by scrutinizing almost every contract to find out if there was slippage in the contract, to find out if there was any cancellation in mind of the contract. we were able to work out a number of arrangements were contracts were being canceled, we were going to pay a termination costs, and we found we were able to work with the contractor to get them soon not take termination costs, but to use the money to complete the

program, and some of those have been extremely successful. there are a lot of ways to come up with these dollars, but it is getting more difficult all the time because the slush funds are pretty much used. we have pretty much taken all of the slush funds, but we continued to work. it is an agonizing jobs, but the members of congress should be very happy with this committee, my committee, because we do not play politics. there is no politics in any of the work that we do. his it is strictly what is good for the country, what is good for our nation's defense, and what is good for the men and women that provide detonation's defense. >> last question. yes? >> no wars could cost upwards of $3 trillion or $4 trillion won all is said and done -- when

all is said and done. if you got some sort of revenue raiser that would target those costs specifically -- we hear a lot about shared sacrifice, but would you support a tax? none of us have ever been asked to support those overseas protecting us? >> you can always send in more to the treasury if you would like, and i would encourage you to do that if you feel that way, but we will not support a tax increase. we think the problem is not that we need more taxes. we need to cut spending. we have had a runaway spending in the last few years, and if we cut the whole the. -- defense budget, and the whole rest of the things that we actually get a chance to vote on, we would still be running a deficit. the real problem is the courage to address the entitlement program. that is the only way to fix it,

and the only way to get the economy going and people back to work. if we could cut the unemployment in half, half of them back to work, that would make a huge difference in our deficit and our budget. thank you very much. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> republican members of the house armed services committee talking about defense spending this year, and also the possibility of potential cuts, no matter what deal, what legislation passes this weekend in the congress. yesterday, of course, the john boehner reduction plan passed the house by a vote of 218-210, but the senate made quick work of that and the vote to block that go was 59-41. the house is coming up at 1:00

p.m. eastern. we will take you there live. we we expect them to proceed to a number of postponed votes, take care of those, and then on the take 40 minutes, or an hour of debate on basically harry reid's debt reduction plan, a house version of that submitted yesterday. if the house will debate that, a vote that, and probably be finished before 3:00 p.m. this afternoon. cq says that allows for two point $4 trillion turned and looked at the house is coming in. we will take you there live.

if ordered and approval of the journal. the first electronic vote will be conducted as a 15-minute vote. remaining electronic votes will be conducted as five-minute votes. the unfinished business is the question on suspending the rules and passing h.r. 1975. the clerk will report by title. the clerk: h.r. 1975, a bill to designate the facility of the united states postal service located at 281 east colorado boulevard in pasadena, california, as the first lieutenant oliver goodall post office building. the speaker pro tempore: the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 having responded in the affirmative -- for what purpose does the gentleman rise? >> mr. speaker, request a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentleman ask for the yeas and nays?

>> yes. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 416, the nays are zero. 2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the unfinished business is the question on suspending the rules and passing h.r. 1843 which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: h.r. 1843, a bill to designate the facility of the united states postal service located at 489 army drive in guam as the john penk -- pangelinan gerber post office building. the speaker pro tempore: the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative, -- >> mr. speaker.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? >> on that i request the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. all those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing until counted. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 414. the nays are three. 2/3 having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table.

pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, the unfinished business is the question on agreeing to the speaker's approval of the journal. on which the yeas and nays were ordered. the question is on agreeing to the speaker's approval of the journal. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are --

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 298. the nays are 113 with two answering present. the journal stands approved. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? mr. dreier: to ask the house be in order, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the house will be in order. members, take your conversations off the floor.

members will take their conversations off the floor. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order.

the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. members, take your conversations off the floor. members will take their conversations off the floor. members on the side of the majority will take their conversations off the floor. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise seek recognition? mr. dreier: mr. speaker, i move to suspend the rules and pass the bill h.r. 2693, to cut

spending, maintain existing commitments and for other purposes, as amended. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 2693, a bill to cut spending, maintain existing commitments and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from massachusetts rise? >> parliamentary inquiry, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will suspend. the gentleman will suspend. the house will be in order. the house will be in order. the gentleman has the right to be heard. the gentleman from massachusetts will state his inquiry. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, is it true that a bill considered under suspension of the rules denies the minority party the right to offer any amendments or even a motion to recommit? the speaker pro tempore: a motion to suspend is not liable to amendment on the floor. mr. mcgovern: further parliamentary inquiry, meerks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry. mr. mcgovern: is it true that

it requires a 2/3 supermajority vote in order for a bill to vote? the speaker pro tempore: under rule 15, a motion to suspend it will have 2/3, a quorum being present. mr. mcgovern: further parliamentary inquiry, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will state his inquiry. >> the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: is it also true, mr. speaker, that a bill considered under suspension of the rules does not pass if it receives a simple majority vote but not 2/3 of the vote? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is correct. mr. mcgovern: and further parliamentary inquiry, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will state his inquiry. mr. mcgovern: does this mean that speaker boehner's bill to raise the debt limit and to destroy medicare would have failed if it would have been considered under suspension of the rules yesterday? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman has not stated a quirequoir. mr. mcgovern: thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from california, mr.

dreier, and the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. mcgovern, will each control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. mr. dreier: thank you, mr. speaker. i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on this measure and i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. dreier: mr. speaker -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california. mr. dreier: i think this is the first time that i've offered a reid proposal in the house of representatives. and one might ask why it is that we are here doing this, and it's very apparent to me why it is that we're here doing this. and that is we want to ensure that next tuesday we see an increase in the debt ceiling so the social security checks go out, we have -- we bring about spending reductions and maintain the credit rating of the united states of america and do everything that i believe that both republicans and democrats alike want to have take place. as you know, mr. speaker, we

have passed from this house two measures within the last two weeks. the cut, cap and balance measure and just last night the boehner proposal which as we all know stem from a bipartisan meeting that he had exactly one week ago this afternoon in his meeting with senator reid right down the hall. and unfortunately mr. reid no longer supports the proposal that we passed last night, and senator reid has said on several occasions that his plan is the only plan that can pass both houses of congress. now, five minutes ago senator mcconnell once again asked senator reid to bring up this plan that senator reid said was the only one that could pass both houses of congress and senator reid said no. thursday night i introduced this measure of senator reid's and

was asked in the rules committee yesterday by mr. mcgovern whether or not we would bring it up and i said we didn't plan to. but the fact is senator mcconnell, having made the request now at least twice in the other body to have it brought up, asked us to raise this measure here and that's exactly what we are doing. now, if we look at where it is that we're headed, we all want to have a bipartisan compromise that will ensure that on tuesday we see that increase in the debt ceiling take place and do these other things. that's what the speaker of the house and the democratic leader of the united states senate, along with leader mcconnell, leader pelosi discussed a week ago today. and as speaker boehner said from the well last night, this was an agreement which was supported by senator reid.

but things have changed, things have changed, we know that. but there is one thing that has not changed. and that is we have to act as quickly as possible. we need to come up with a compromise and you know what? since senator reid happens to believe that his measure is the only one that can pass both houses of congress, we are going to let him know when we defeat it here in the house of representatives that it is not the plan that can gain broad support in the house and the senate. and so for that reason, mr. speaker, we are bringing this up , we, i believe, should have an opportunity for every member of this house to go on record on this issue and i'm going to urge my colleagues to vote no on this proposal so that we can come together with an important bipartisan compromise to achieve the goal that we all say that we share and with that, mr. speaker, i reserve the balance

of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california reserves his time. the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. mcgovern, is recognized. mr. mcgovern: i yield myself three minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, this process has become a joke. it is a disgrace. it's an insult to the american people. i would say to my friends on the other side of the aisle, now is the time to act like grownups. this is the time to put our country before your political party. this is the time to put our country before the tea party. this is the time to do what's right. today you are bringing up the latest version of the reid plan. under not only a closed rule but under the most restrictive process we have in the house. usually reserved for noncontroversial bills. this is a $2.5 trillion bill being brought up under the same process that you bring up bills naming post offices. 20 minutes of debate, no amendments allowed, we're not even allowed to offer a motion to recommit to where you need a

2/3 supermajority. under this process your own bill would have failed. that's right. if your bill were brought up under this procedure, your bill would have lost last night. mr. speaker, the only bill we should consider on the house floor is one that has been agreed to by the house and senate leaders and the president of the united states. so why are we doing this today? let's be honest, you're doing it to score some cheap political points. i would like to remind the speaker of the house that he's the speaker of not just the republican party but that he's the speaker of the whole house. now is a time to bring us together, nottary us apart -- not tear us apart. maybe the reid bill is the one that can unite us because it achieves tremendous savings without decimating medicare, medicaid and social security. but, mr. speaker, to bring it up under this process is cynical and it demeans the house of representatives. i would say to the republican leadership, enough political stunts. our country is facing a terrible economic crisis. a crisis that you created and one that you can avoid.

but we've run out of time. now is the time for leadership, not bad political theater. now is the time to be to behave like legislators. please rise to the occasion. the reid bill is not the bill i would have written. it's not the truly balanced approach that i would have hoped for. there are no revenues in this bill. but i think it's the best approach that is on the table right now. and i'm willing to compromise. so i will vote yes on this bill. i'm willing to put my country first. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts reserves. members are advised to address their comments to the chair. not to other members. the gentleman from california, mr. dreier. mr. dreier: at this time i'm happy to yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished former chairman of the committee on appropriations, my friend

from california, mr. lewis. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california, mr. lewis, is recognized for as much time as he wishes to consume. mr. lewis: mr. speaker, if it were not for the remarks of my colleague from california as well as his colleague from the rules committee, i wouldn't be making these remarks. i'll begin with a quote. the facts that we are here today to debate raising america's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. increasing america's debt weakens us domestically and internationally. leadership means that the buck stops here. instead washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. america has a debt problem and a failure of leadership, americans deserve better, unquote. senator barack obama, march of 2006.

by 2009 senator obama had become president obama. in two years since he became president, federal spending has increased by over 5ds00 billion a year -- $500 billion a year. in the past two years he has added nearly $4 trillion to our national debt. now president obama is in favor of increasing the national debt limit. when, oh, when will the real barack obama stand up? i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california yields back his time. the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. mcgovern: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield three minutes to the distinguished gentleman from maryland, the democratic whip, mr. hoyer. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland is recognized for three minutes. mr. hoyer: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered.

mr. hoyer: mr. speaker, my colleagues, our neighbors, our friends sent us here to be responsible and to come to the aid of our country at a time of crisis. our country is at such a time now. our people confront uncertainty and fear and they're looking to us, looking to us for the courage to compromise and act to prevent default and to prevent gridlock and irresponsibility. yesterday we learned that investors in american stocks lost more than $400 billion when just a few days ago speaker boehner said he could not compromise with president obama.

now we're standing -- notwithstanding the remarks of my friend from california, the chairman of the rules committee, who talks about a bipartisan compromise, i tell my friend, you have not moved a single centimeter towards compromise with our side of the aisle. not a single centimeter. and what do we see in the united states senate, my friends? we see a majority leader of the united states senate who has the president with him, so, yes, you control 1/3 and you control over 40%, so you can stop things from happening in the senate, but the people aren't looking to us for what we can stop. they're looking to us for what we can do. for what we can do to make our country healed at this point in time. so what has senator reid done with this bill that you

introduced, guaranteed to fail? this is the second time you've put a bill on the floor to extend the debt limit guaranteed to fail. it is a pattern, frankly, i is a -- i say to you, my friends, and it's a pattern that the american public ought not to count on. what senator reid has done is he's taken the view of the speaker boehner and leader cantor and said, we need a long-term solution. and then he has compromised notwithstanding the fact that all of us on this side believe that the wealthiest among us should help take us out of this crisis and not rely on the most vulnerable among us. and so there is no revenue in senator reid's bill, notwithstanding the overwhelming numbers of us on this side of the aisle believe that's good policy. and i know that some of you on

your side of the aisle believe that as well. senator reid has set up a process so that we can continue to look at what we know we need to look at, bringing our deficit and debt down for which we are all responsible, my friends. i thank the gentleman. so we confront this moment of responsibility. i believe my side of the aisle will overwhelmingly say yes, not because they like this bill but because they believe it is a compromise that can work. because it takes so much of the demands that you have made on your side of the aisle, but if you came to congress expecting perfection, if you came to congress expecting only that you do it your way and no other way, you will be disappointed. as all of us are disappointed because it cannot happen that way. our founding fathers brought us from many places with many

perspectives to try to heal our country and provide for the general welfare. let us avoid default. let us set ourselves on a path of compromise. my friends on the republican side of the aisle, we're going to vote for the most part for this bill. we do not believe it's perfect. but we believe it's possible. america expects us to do that. the summer soldiers and sunshine patriots will retreat at this time of crisis. do not do that. i yield back the balance of my time. mr. dreier: i yield my friend an additional 15 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from massachusetts reserves. and the gentleman from california is recognized.

mr. dreier: mr. speaker, i will say that i was prepared to engage in a colloquy with my good friend from maryland and explain to him that if senator reid believes that this is a great compromise why will he not respond to senator mcconnell's repeated requests to bring it up in the united states senate? and with that, mr. speaker, with that, mr. speaker, i'm happy to yield one minute to our presidential candidate, our good friend from still water, minnesota, mrs. bachmann. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from minnesota is recognized. the house will be in order. mrs. bachmann: thank you, mr. speaker. throughout this debate over guaranteeing insane never-before-seen in the history of this country levels of spending, president obama has coolly stood on the sidelines, his arms crossed, very simply castigating republicans for not giving him a $2.4 trillion blank check. meanwhile the only plan that the president has put forward is his february budget which in itself

contained yet one more $1.5 trillion deficit. the president has no plan. only the republicans have offered plans. now is the time for the president to show leadership and the only leadership that he's showing is one that's saying,ities ,ities ,ities -- saying, tisk, tisk, tisk. we call on the president of the united states to finally engage in the process. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from minnesota, mrs. bachmann, yields back. the gentleman from california reserves. the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, let me just remind the gentlelady that no one on the democratic side ever walked out of a meeting. at this point i'd like to yield one minute to the gentleman from michigan, the ranking member of the ways and means committee, mr. levin. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan is recognized for one minute. recognized for one minute. mr. levin: i ask unanimous